The interview with Magdalena Gorska appeared
in A&B 11'2020
According to a report by UN Environment, stopping the climate crisis will be possible if we reduce global emissions by 7.6 percent per year for the next ten years. The recently published United Nations Emissions Gap Report indicates that changes need to be made not only in global environmental policy, but also in construction and transportation. We talk to Magdalena Gorska about alternative paths for human- and nature-friendly architecture.
Edyta Skiba: To what extent does natural building have a chance to break the current climate impasse, and to what extent is it an expression of a utopian vision of saving the world?
Magdalena Gorska: The construction market is currently responsible for 1/3 of environmental pollution, that's a lot, and many architects don't realize it. Natural construction reducing pollution by about 60 percent is the answer to reducing this negative impact. However, if we think about the global scale, remember that construction is one of the factors affecting climate change. In order to effectively counteract it, it is necessary to make changes in many fields. Our strategy must be comprehensive - thinking of construction alone as a way to save the world is utopian, but it is nevertheless an essential element. Additionally, focusing only on climate issues is quite limited. My decision to go into deep ecology, permaculture, natural building stems from respect for nature. It is my personal attempt to find harmony in our civilization to enjoy its development, while striving to live in a friendly environment. The paths of life we follow - including in architecture - poison ourselves. The concept of human well-being has been disconnected from the natural environment. Targeting natural architecture is an attempt to restore the right order of things.
photo from the construction of the prototype BioDomek - natural mobile home
© eKodamaART Magdalena Górska
Edyta: The belief in certifying buildings as a way to reduce the negative impact of buildings on the environment is currently under review. So what is contemporary green building? What should architecture created in accordance with the idea of deep ecology be like?
Magdalena: The positive aspect of buildings created in this way is the sheer desire to have a better impact on the environment. Packing a building with complex technologies may only give the appearance, but if we consider the amount of natural resources consumed along the way and the durability of the materials or solutions used and their degradability, doubts arise. In my opinion, true modern green building is one that follows the principles of permaculture, understood as a design system - or perhaps even a philosophical system - that promotes care for the earth and people, sensible management of resources, and sharing of the surplus. In the field of architecture, this means observing the construction process at every stage, considering where and how the materials were obtained, how much pollution was created in the process, and especially how much potable water was used - the latter aspect is hardly paid attention to, yet it will soon be one of the scarce resources. Often complex technologies and equipment used in buildings are considered ecological - in this context they are not so, and better, often simpler solutions should be sought.
In designing according to the principles of deep ecology, it is important that, in addition to observing the entire life cycle of architecture, using given solutions to create added value, so that matter and energy are part of a circular cycle. The simplest example of such thinking in an urban context is attempts to deal with rainwater. Its excess, on the one hand, is a threat, while on the other hand, all attempts to retain it and irrigate green areas with it carry great potential. The problem becomes a resource. Reducing the urban heat island phenomenon consumes huge amounts of energy. Every kilowatt, after all, is pollution. Simply plant trees (or use green facades) and control shading naturally. The result is a more stabilized temperature in both summer and winter, plus oxygen and a reduction in pollution and carbon dioxide (the miracle of photosynthesis as a response to the greenhouse effect and global warming) and greater control over rainwater, if combined with low retention. Looking for technological solutions, how to allow greenery, trees to have a presence in cities, is the right direction. In addition, we are much nicer among trees, nature. The view of a tree in the city is sometimes a luxury, yet it should be a standard.
Technology is not a bad thing, we shape its development, so we can support what serves us, for example, natural building. For example, let's look at modern attempts to produce building materials from mushrooms, or the creation of cellulose "plastic" that is fully compostable and non-oil derived, that is, supernatural, biodegradable materials that are good for us and the environment. We should guide technological development in such a way that technology serves us, not takes us captive, lowering our quality of life.
BioDomek - ecological modular house for expansion with natural materials
© eKodamaART Magdalena Górska
Edyta: Still, many of the solutions mentioned here - such as rainwater retention - require complicated and time-consuming legal procedures. So as an environment, shouldn't we exert a stronger influence on decision-makers to facilitate access to such solutions?
Magdalena: Yes, the transformation should happen on many levels. I realize that this is a very long process and even requires several generational changes, only in the context of the climate we don't have that much time. That's why personal motivation focused on daily, private choices and, in the case of architects, on our professional practice, is very important. A consistent public voice backed by a sufficient number of projects is capable of influencing the authorities. Currently, the impression is that thinking in terms of ecology has not yet reached the legislature, and if it appears, it is in very enigmatic assumptions understood only as energy efficiency, ignoring the issues of the whole life of technologies, materials and their impact on health or waste production. Developing public awareness of building with straw, hemp, wood or the innovative biodegradable materials mentioned earlier does not have to be paid for by the efforts of various institutions, it can come from the daily work of any designer. Nevertheless, if the construction law or other environmental enforcement system does not follow these necessary changes, awareness alone will not have the power to bring about large-scale change. Change is needed on many levels and will not happen without our private involvement. We simply don't have time for the education system to produce new policies and politicians for us. Let's work with what we have now, here. Besides, I think that in healthy societies, citizens are involved in issues that affect them. Climate change, environmental contamination, building in an unhealthy way is something that affects everyone personally. So why shouldn't we show personal concern and involvement in these fields?
Edyta: Can we talk about the development of sustainable architecture without simultaneously transforming consumer society?
Magdalena: Being completely honest with the current consumer model, we note that it does not give us a sense of happiness, and is additionally destructive to the environment. On the one hand, we live in a time of tremendous technological progress, processing, production and pollution on a mass scale, while on the other hand, we face diseases of civilization, such as depression, infertility, cancer. One results from the other. So it seems that change is inevitable and does not need to be programmed, we will demand and seek it ourselves. It's just a shame that nowadays the biggest motivator is mainly serious illness. Then we want to live naturally, eat healthy, live in a healthy environment and environment, in a healthy home, avoid chemicals, unhealthy products and highly stressful situations, make sure we have someone to care for us. Until it happens to us, we are less likely to think about whether it is worth it to take care of the environment around us, as if we are asking for some kind of upheaval, yet everything is connected. Not everyone connects environmental contamination with diseases. That's why this change is not happening evenly across all social groups. In my opinion, it is very important to inform people about their choices. Everyone will bet on what is good for them; not every decision will be dictated by the good of the environment or the climate. Many people, probably the majority, do not think in these terms. However, if we show the advantages of natural building or permaculture, prove that we feel healthier and happier in natural places, further argumentation may not be necessary. However, the problem is the unfamiliarity with this alternative path, the lack of specialists in this field. At this stage it is important to disseminate knowledge, the education system does not follow the development of natural building methods. Voices reach me that it is difficult to break through at the university with such ideas, they are not always accepted or well understood. That's why I got involved in alternative education, I run a summer school of natural design. I also feel that changes in universities have begun, so there is hope.
BioDomek 2 Junior - natural mobile living modules tinyhouse
Photo: Szymon Wyrzykowski (investor)
Edyta: The trend of designing iconic buildings is slowly going away. So can we hope that environmental awareness is slowly becoming one of the standards rather than a fashionable trend?
Magdalena: Iconic buildings are needed and are not a bad thing - but let's be responsible to our profession. Most architecture is ordinary buildings - the everyday architecture in which we live, sleep, work, in which our children are raised. It is what builds our quality of life, our health, and it is the critical mass that shapes the quality of the environment. The aspect of ordinariness and mediocrity of architecture is notoriously overlooked, especially during the study period. We need a clear, educational message that being an architect who focuses on collaboration and the quality of ordinary, average places (rather than on being a star), who creates for ordinary people, average architecture, but of great quality, in accordance with the principles of deep ecology and permaculture, is something fantastic. It is in this area that there is the most to do. I myself decided to be honest with myself in life, moved out to the countryside, set up a studio far from the big city, left the system of the race for more awards, in order to help people create a space that is good for them, ecological. In such daily service, implementing permacultural design principles, I find the opportunity to return with architecture to the source - to man, to nature, to do something good in everyday life. Focusing on icons dehumanizes the idea of architecture, and in the long run is just a story of ego. I choose eco, synergy, collaboration.
Edyta: Should the principles of permaculture design: take care of the earth, take care of people, share the excess, be included in the architect's code of professional ethics?
Magdalena: On the one hand, it raises a form of some sort of compulsion, which I cannot support. On the other hand, putting them in the code could make more people think about these aspects and the idea of permaculture itself. However, it should definitely be a decision resulting from a broader discussion beforehand. It should be consciously made by the design community. Procedural imposition may do more harm than good.
{Image@url=https://cdn.architekturaibiznes.pl/upload/galerie/41305/images/original/6ac8ba5d5896d37c1b52114a0fce28db.jpg,alt=BioDomek 2 Junior - natural mobile living modules tinyhouse,title=BioDomek 2 Junior - natural mobile living modules tinyhouse}
BioDomek 2 Junior - natural mobile living modules tinyhouse
Photo: Szymon Wyrzykowski (investor)
Edyta: Is there a chance that in the coming years, public buildings and multi-family residential buildings constructed with natural materials will be built in Poland?
Magdalena: Currently, our legislation does not allow this. We operate on the basis of a unit product, which we can use in single-family construction. In the case of larger buildings, fire regulations are a roadblock. In order to change this, it is necessary to do research and approvals or create a standard for natural construction. The latter, in particular, would bring clarity to the procedures needed in construction. As part of the activities of the National Association of Natural Building, we have managed to develop an ITB approval classifying straw cube walls as NRO - non-fire-spreading - but these are very expensive tests. We know that foreign studies confirm the fire resistance of a straw wall plastered with clay or lime plaster at 90 minutes. With our current modest financial resources, we are unable to perform the tests needed for approval. Another disadvantage is its relatively short duration in relation to the financial outlay. A better solution is a Standard dedicated to natural construction (such is the case in France) or an entire law (as in the United States). Standards and regulations developed in other countries, however, have very strong grassroots support, associations with a large number of members; in Poland, it is still a topic important to a handful. But we are active, with high hopes for the European Strawbale Building Association (ESBA), of which our association is a member, and their ongoing work on a Eurocode for natural building; we are likely to join this project. The introduction of a Eurocode for strawbale construction on a European scale would make it possible in five or seven years or so to erect public buildings from natural materials in Poland as well. Changes are taking place, but for this dynamic to be in line with the problems we are facing (including climate change), more informed legislators are needed.
Edyta: Where does the industry skepticism towards natural solutions come from?
Magdalena: I think education is key. If we have been educated in a certain system, we are comfortable moving within familiar solutions. Perhaps this skepticism stems from the need to learn and understand new strategies and technologies, which requires some effort and openness. To be able to start a discussion about ecology and its importance, it is important that we talk about facts, not ideas, for example, data on what resources were used to produce particular materials and how much, and compare that. Basing it on concrete data will also help to see natural architecture as another branch of architecture, as valuable as others, with much to offer. And even much more, because of the developmental situation. In countries such as Denmark and France, the natural building market is about 15 percent of the construction market; the trend is upward. So we're not talking about utopia, we're talking about a growing awareness of how we affect our environment when we're not attentive to the pollution aspects, and as a result what we're doing to ourselves, our health, our children, now. More and more people want to take care of this.
{Image@url=https://cdn.architekturaibiznes.pl/upload/galerie/41313/images/original/75f9aebd0d63c941bbfc0dcc9e5e76b0.jpg,alt=Dom from straw - ecological farm in Kotlina Kłodzka,title=Home from straw - ecological farm in Kotlina Kłodzka}
A house made of straw - an ecological farm in Kotlina Kłodzka.
© eKodamaART Magdalena Górska
Edyta: The prerequisite is a willingness to get out of the comfort zone, and to revise the term "traditional" in relation to technologies, especially reinforced concrete.
Magdalena: Yes, this is true. When I recall my path to becoming a natural architect, I see the enormity of the work on the people I worked with. I had to put in a lot of effort to convince builders and tradesmen of alternative construction methods, I had to learn a lot of trades to teach it to others. I realize that not everyone wants this kind of work if we have familiar methodologies at our fingertips.
Edyta: Permaculture design principles seem relatively universal. Is it possible to apply them to designing people- and nature-friendly cities?
Magdalena: By all means! Books such as "Edible Cities: Urban Permaculture for Gardens, Balconies, Rooftops, and Beyond" and "Permaculture In The City" explain exactly how to apply permaculture in the city. Of course, the idea is not to make a revolution and create completely new urban structures, but to bring what is already there closer to standards closer to nature, the circular circulation of goods. This requires strategies introduced from both the municipal and legislative levels. In Wroclaw, Gdansk or Torun, urban crops, urban beehives are already being promoted; in London, they are grazing sheep and cows in parks to avoid using lawnmowers, rainwater retention in the form of small-scale retention is becoming more common, and the area and quality of green spaces is increasing. Many good initiatives have also been brought to the city space by projects submitted as part of civic budgets. People are increasingly striving to improve the quality of life in the city. Food independence of cities relying on local, urban food cultivation is also a very important aspect. For example, let's look at the farm set up on the roof of the Boston Medical Center - it supplies the hospital's kitchen with fresh produce, and the group of people taking care of it has created a strong local community. What a beautiful initiative - and it's not an isolated one. These are good directions that are already taking hold on a larger scale. Therefore, creating permaculture cities is possible, it's just a matter of access to knowledge and opportunities.
Edyta: The city and the countryside were clearly separated from each other. Now we realize that they are interdependent and cannot exist without each other. What can cities learn from the countryside?
Magdalena: I think the boundary between the countryside and the city has blurred. On the one hand, you can work in the comfort of nature and at the same time enjoy the cultural offerings of the city. On the other hand, it is possible to be a bourgeois and, through various food cooperatives or other organizations, remain in constant contact with the countryside. Cities don't have to be just big, futuristic and sprawling metropolises, they can be a human-friendly natural ecosystem. A stronger connection between the city and nature could be the first such element. The second should be the strengthening of local communities and neighborhood communities, which increases the sense of identification in the city and security. In the villages, the ties that bind local communities together play a very important role, and it's what makes them more peaceful and safe.
{Image@url=https://cdn.architekturaibiznes.pl/upload/galerie/41310/images/original/ad4267a80ce69f1563308b15329e6053.jpg,alt=wykończenia of lime plaster and larch boards,title=lime plaster and larch board finishes}
finishes with lime plaster and larch planks
© eKodamaART Magdalena Górska
Edyta: Rural communities are now being fed by new residents - people tired of the rush of life in metropolises. What does the future hold for villages and small towns?
Magdalena: I perceive the influx of people from cities to the countryside as something positive and developmental, mainly because very interesting things always happen at the meeting point of different cultures, new ideas are born. Of course, there is a risk of the indigenous population being dominated by the incoming one, which can lead to the disappearance of local traditions both in the social and architectural layers. It is very important to protect rural identity, especially at a time when, at a very fast pace, villages are becoming suburbs or clusters of bourgeois summer houses. A village does not have to be a copy of a suburban settlement; it can, and even should, retain its local and distinctive character - even though it will be populated by people raised by cities. City planners creating local plans should keep this in mind.
I observe these changes and see many activities carried out by immigrant residents respecting these stable, multi-generational social structures. Thanks to them, many facts and stories have been written down and documented. It is important, therefore, that in this cultural exchange between the countryside and the city, the local social resources hidden not only in buildings, but especially in stories or music, are not lost. This is also what the natural design I teach is about. To take care of what is local, close to us, to build the social quality of our relationships, to take care of the environment, also understood as our immediate surroundings and our home. To make it healthy, friendly, safe. In fact, a truly ecological architecture is one that works ecosystemically, one that designs friendly and good connections in our living system with our surroundings, neighbors, nature. This is the kind of architecture I wish for everyone. In such architecture, no matter in the city or in the countryside, in a cottage or in a cohousing, we have a chance to feel healthy and happy.
Edyta: Thank you for the interview.
interviewed: Edyta Skiba
Photo: Magdalena Gorska, eKodama
